ashleymadison.com

[FestivusMiracle]

How do you all feel about this site? Is it detestable and immoral, or something to keep an open-mind about?

Personally I think it's ethically atrocious, but as a website business I think the idea is genius.

[Scarf in the wind]

Interestig article I read last night on the website: http://www.dailydot.com/opinion/ashley-madison-why-women-cheat/

 

personally, I'm not sure about the site. I can see how it is beneficial to those who use it, and how it hurts those who are faithful to their spouses. Furthemore, being someone who has been single his entire life (almost 30) I can see how I become less annoyed by it. Why get angry or upset with those who partake in infidelity? I mean, I'm unlikely to ever be in a relationship and these cases of cheating are always unrelated to me. Also, meeting women who are married makes me wish they'd be interested in cheating on their husbands. I know, I'm not a good person. i don't make moves or anything, if that, in any way, exculpates me (readying myself for the barrage of tomatoes). I wouldn't do anything. I'm a coward. Which is sort of my point. I find it odd for me to get upset with those who have more courage than I do.

 

But, maybe this is my lonely self talking and my opinion is blinded. I do only really have myself to talk to.

Edited May 19, 2014 by Scarf in the wind

[Roll Right]

I think this site represents the further reification and commodification of desire--not to mention it glorifies and celebrates the manipulation of a spouse, partner, whatever you want to call it.

 

Of course, it is also an indicator of how hollow marriage is. I'm not suggesting that marriage was once some sanctified, flawless union--that is completely rediculous to suggest. I am suggesting that this website points to the instrumentalization of marriage--the commodification of its intimacy and the destruction of what you might refer to as its "aura," if such a thing can be spoken of.

 

The site also represents profit made by manipulating the suffering and unhappiness of others, in my opinion. It preys upon those who are probably unhappy with their marriage, or those who are sexually unsatisfied, etc.

 

Its pretty depressing if you really stop and think about it.

[CageFree]

It was only a matter of time before a website like this showed up, and the fact that it has been successful for a number of years shows that there was a market for such a thing. The concept of marital fidelity (well, on the part of men) is relatively recent given that for quite some time marriage was a mere business arrangement. I think it would be interesting to find out about the gender divide between users of the site. I suspect, with no proof whatsoever, that women are more likely to use sites like this to arrange trysts discreetly, given that there still is a considerable disparity in social attitudes toward unfaithful spouses based on their gender (for this, just look at responses to cheating celebrities: men are far more likely to get a pass). So, should my hypothesis hold true, would that mean that this site is part of the latest "sexual revolution" (i.e. raunch culture) by allowing women to engage in activities that men have been able to enjoy with little to no social cost? Or is the website exploiting women's need for discretion? Like I said, it would be interesting to know. 

 

Is it ethically revolting? Hard to answer. I prefer companies whose ethical standards are a match for mine, but I also know that many companies refuse to get pulled into ethics questions because their purpose is to make a profit, nothing more. So... obviously I would never support a company like AM, but in the grand scheme of things, there are companies that are far more questionable in terms of ethics, not to mention that their impact is so much greater (*cough*Walmart*cough*). In terms of morals... well... we'd have to get into a discussion about what constitutes moral behavior, which then leads to religion and... screw it. Not going there.

 

In terms of the "institution of marriage," which I have willingly joined not once, but twice (the first time ended due to my ex's infidelity, btw), websites like this one are not a "contribution" to its downfall. It's people's attitudes toward marriage and toward their partners that have changed the institution. My ex did not use a site like AM - he hooked up with some woman he'd crushed on back in high school. But if it hadn't been her, it would have been someone else. Our ideas about marriage (like our ideas about my place in society) were vastly different, and in the end, he acted in accordance to his disregard for me. I've since remarried, and to be perfectly honest, I not only trust him completely, but I know that he would have remained faithful to me even if I'd refused to sign a wedding license, because that's just who he is.

 

So... I don't necessarily have an answer, just more questions. But I'm with the OP: as a business proposition, it's quite brilliant.

[MakeYourself]

I don't think it's brilliant. Any person who pays attention to the norms in Western society would know that this would make a profit. I think it's ballsy. Not every person would have the balls to start this site.

 

If you asked me a few years ago, I would be disturbed by this site. But now, I really have stopped giving a shit about people's lives. People do dumb shit all the time. I know it makes me selfish, but I don't really care if it doesn't affect me directly.

[starofdawn]

I think it's ethically atrocious.

 

Reminds me of the difference between manslaughter and 1st degree murder: while both actions are terrible and punishable, most people agree that manslaughter is somewhat more forgivable. Cheating is similar, to me: unplanned one-time sexual encounter is very different and far more forgivable than a planned, drawn out sexual love affair. Ashley Madison represents the latter.

[CageFree]

Cheating is similar, to me: unplanned one-time sexual encounter is very different and far more forgivable than a planned, drawn out sexual love affair. Ashley Madison represents the latter.

 

I don't understand this mentality. To me, they are equally unforgivable. They both constitute betrayals of trust. 

[Roll Right]

Well, I think that both acts are forgivable. But thats not really a question relevant to Ashley Madison as a business and a "social space," if it could be called that.

 

I was actually thinking about this a bit more today -- it seems to me that the problem is not the website itself, but the institution of marriage itself, which is taken as an unquestioned good in society. Ashley Madison is certainly profiting from what many would consider a dispicable act (cheating on a spouse, partner, etc) which devalues a particular marriage or at least damages that particular marriage, but it is simultaneously upholding marriage as a legitimate institution. In fact, the service suggests that the real "fun" of marriage is stepping out on your partner: "Life is short, have an affair". Or, in other words, don't worry if your marriage did not turn out as you expected, you can pay to meet another unhappy spouse and secretly fuck. You can buy the happiness your marriage did not provide.

 

We ought to be critical of not merely this service, but what the service represents: the unreflexive drive to marry, or accept the institution of marriage, without really considering what marriage is (and I don't mean to present this as a religious question, it is a primarily a social question).

[victorydance]

I think you really overstate the 'unquestioned good' of marriage in today's society. Marriage rates, in the US for example, have never been lower; they are now approximately at 51% more or less. Furthermore, only 20% of adults aged 18 to 29 are married.

 

http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21569433-americas-marriage-rate-falling-and-its-out-wedlock-birth-rate-soaring-fraying

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/americans-married-poll-article-1.991402

 

If the institution of marriage is unquestioned as good, then why would less and less people be tying the knot? 

[MakeYourself]

None of this really has anything to do with an 'inherent goodness' of marriage. Marriage is what you make it. The fact that a lot of people in the West have problems with relationships says more about our concept of 'relationship' than it does about the goodness of marriage.

 

What I'm trying to say is, our culture does not foster the sorts of long-lasting monogamous relationships that we wish it would.

[hj2012]

It was only a matter of time before a website like this showed up, and the fact that it has been successful for a number of years shows that there was a market for such a thing. The concept of marital fidelity (well, on the part of men) is relatively recent given that for quite some time marriage was a mere business arrangement. I think it would be interesting to find out about the gender divide between users of the site. I suspect, with no proof whatsoever, that women are more likely to use sites like this to arrange trysts discreetly, given that there still is a considerable disparity in social attitudes toward unfaithful spouses based on their gender (for this, just look at responses to cheating celebrities: men are far more likely to get a pass). 

 

FWIW, the article that Scarf in the Wind posted earlier said that the site is 70% men, 30% women. 

[Roll Right]

I think you really overstate the 'unquestioned good' of marriage in today's society. Marriage rates, in the US for example, have never been lower; they are now approximately at 51% more or less. Furthermore, only 20% of adults aged 18 to 29 are married.

 

http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21569433-americas-marriage-rate-falling-and-its-out-wedlock-birth-rate-soaring-fraying

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/americans-married-poll-article-1.991402

 

If the institution of marriage is unquestioned as good, then why would less and less people be tying the knot? 

 

I don't think I'm overstating this at all. I'm well aware of the statistics regarding marriage. But the statistics you quote actually prove my point to some extent -- they reify marriage by uncritically accepting it as a valid institution without digging into the political character of the institution, the domination it represents, etc.

 

In other words, just because people marry less does not mean that the institution of marriage is no longer something that individuals look toward as desirable. You're assuming way too much there.

 

For instance, we might cite the recent victories for gay marriage advocates as evidence of the robust health of marriage. This is an example that gets below mere superficial statistics and points to the political and social character of marriage. Marriage is alive and well -- certainly something people still want in their lives, and certainly something that individuals and couples believe is worth fighting for.

 

What I'm suggesting is that the concept of marriage, or the idea, or perhaps more accurately, the ideology of marriage is largely unquestioned and assumed to be right and good. Ashley Madison is a perfect example of this: get married, and if it turns out that the reality of marriage didn't stand up your expectations, you can pay us to step out on your spouse. But don't question the institution or the ideology of marriage!

[CageFree]

FWIW, the article that Scarf in the Wind posted earlier said that the site is 70% men, 30% women. 

 

Interesting. That seems to be numbers of community members, but does not indicate how many actually use the site (and "benefit" from it). How many users are active at any particular time, and how many are setting up dates? I doubt AM would publish those figures, but a 70/30 split means that for women it's a "buyer's market," so to speak.

 

(All of that assuming that the site only caters to heterosexual encounters, which I'm not really wiling to find out by visiting the site). 

 

Fascinating topic though.

[CageFree]

 

For instance, we might cite the recent victories for gay marriage advocates as evidence of the robust health of marriage. This is an example that gets below mere superficial statistics and points to the political and social character of marriage. Marriage is alive and well -- certainly something people still want in their lives, and certainly something that individuals and couples believe is worth fighting for.

 

A professor I know well would argue that the gay marriage movement is another example of internalized middle-class heteronormativity, rather than a sign of the strength of marriage. 

[Roll Right]

A professor I know well would argue that the gay marriage movement is another example of internalized middle-class heteronormativity, rather than a sign of the strength of marriage.

You think you can disentangle marriage from heteronormativity?

[hj2012]

Interesting. That seems to be numbers of community members, but does not indicate how many actually use the site (and "benefit" from it). How many users are active at any particular time, and how many are setting up dates? I doubt AM would publish those figures, but a 70/30 split means that for women it's a "buyer's market," so to speak.

 

(All of that assuming that the site only caters to heterosexual encounters, which I'm not really wiling to find out by visiting the site). 

 

Fascinating topic though.

 

I would still expect there to be more active male users than female users, as this is the case for nearly all dating sites across the board. During my foray into online dating, I was consistently surprised by how uneven the male:female ratio was. I never really figured out why this is the case, just something that I noticed. 

 

Yes, I am also making a number of heteronormative assumptions here, haha. I'm curious enough to want to visit the site, but the country I live in has blocked access to it for being "immoral and pornographic." womp.

[Scarf in the wind]

I would still expect there to be more active male users than female users, as this is the case for nearly all dating sites across the board. During my foray into online dating, I was consistently surprised by how uneven the male:female ratio was. I never really figured out why this is the case, just something that I noticed. 

 

Yes, I am also making a number of heteronormative assumptions here, haha. I'm curious enough to want to visit the site, but the country I live in has blocked access to it for being "immoral and pornographic." womp.

 

Out of curiosity, have you tried accessing the site via a tor browser?

[hj2012]

Out of curiosity, have you tried accessing the site via a tor browser?

 

I'm sorry to say that I have no idea what a tor browser is, though my Google search results sound intriguing.  VPNs have been spotty at best (at least for me), but I'm not the most computer savvy person in the world.

[victorydance]

I don't think I'm overstating this at all. I'm well aware of the statistics regarding marriage. But the statistics you quote actually prove my point to some extent -- they reify marriage by uncritically accepting it as a valid institution without digging into the political character of the institution, the domination it represents, etc.

 

In other words, just because people marry less does not mean that the institution of marriage is no longer something that individuals look toward as desirable. You're assuming way too much there.

 

For instance, we might cite the recent victories for gay marriage advocates as evidence of the robust health of marriage. This is an example that gets below mere superficial statistics and points to the political and social character of marriage. Marriage is alive and well -- certainly something people still want in their lives, and certainly something that individuals and couples believe is worth fighting for.

 

What I'm suggesting is that the concept of marriage, or the idea, or perhaps more accurately, the ideology of marriage is largely unquestioned and assumed to be right and good. Ashley Madison is a perfect example of this: get married, and if it turns out that the reality of marriage didn't stand up your expectations, you can pay us to step out on your spouse. But don't question the institution or the ideology of marriage!

 

Once again, I totally disagree. If you look at the trends, marriage as an institution is under attack from a number of angles. And as far as statistics go, here are some that address views on marriage:

 

  

 

So, when asked if the institution is obsolete (which is very strong language BTW), nearly 40% of the public agreed. Additionally, over 65% of the respondents either said that non-traditional forms of relationships are either a good thing or there is no difference.

 

If you were to compare these numbers to answers in say the 50s or 60s (which isn't even that long ago) the answers would be incredibly different. Even in the last decade, norms have dramatically changed:

 

 

 

 

You are seeing an approximately 10 point decrease in importance in 7 years. That is pretty statistically significant. I would argue this trend will continue, just as it has over the last 30 years.

 

Divorce rates are now over 50% nationwide. So not only are people's views towards marriage changing, but they are actively modifying their behaviour (though getting married less and less as I pointed out) and through treating the institution as something that doesn't have a strong value once engaged in. 

 

I would highlight three reasons for the decrease of importance of marriage in the US (this is far from an exhaustive list):

 

1) Men and marriage. Before, marriage was seen as social status symbol for men. This is no longer the case. The role of the father and husband has been eroded in society recently (look no further than the popular media/entertainment representation of the incompetent and stupid father/husband). Recent divorce laws have dramatically changed in the past 40 years. For many men, the risks of marriage is now astronomical where a male can potentially lose half of his net worth and custody of his children through no fault of his own.

 

2) Religion and marriage. Religion has dramatically been dis-tangled from marriage. With lowering practice of marriage and this dis-tangle of marriage and religion, the institution has been cut off under its knees. 

 

3) The rise of the non-traditional family. No longer is the traditional nuclear family as highly valued in our society. The old norm of marriage, then raising children, is a trend of the past. More and more people are both foregoing from having children entirely, and viewing childbearing out of wedlock as a viable alternative to marriage-laden childbearing.

 

Am I saying marriage as an institution is dead? No, for the most part it is still alive and well. That being said, institutions do not die overnight. But to ignore the dramatic trend of decreasing marriage rates, high divorce rates, decreasing positive views of marriage, ect. is foolhardy. 

[CageFree]

You think you can disentangle marriage from heteronormativity?

 

I don't believe I implied such a thing.

 

All I said is that (some) people would argue that "gay marriage" isn't "making marriage stronger" but rather making the heteronormative assumptions and concepts surrounding it part of gay culture when traditionally gay culture used to reject such assumptions. After all, once a same-sex couple marries, they become eligible for divorce, child custody battles, etc.

 

The professor in question is part of an older generation of gay men that rejected the notion of marriage because it was what "straight people" did.